The
so-called Cap & Trade legislation embraced by progressives in the
White House, both houses of the U.S. Congress and left-wing environmentalists
continues to be a priority of neo-Marxists and power-hungry politicians,
according to conservatives and public-interest groups.

"The recent revelations of "junk" science -- even out-and-out
fraud -- have failed to silence the steady drone of the "sky-is-falling"
crowd. In other words, the progressives wish to change American society
based on the recommendations of mendacious and corrupt scientists and
advocates," states political strategist Mike Baker.

However, with Cap
& Trade and other energy legislation unlikely -- at least for
now -- of passing in both houses of the U.S. Congress, the Obama Administration
and its supporters are seeking the means to once again bypass the legislative
branch. In other words, failing to sign an energy bill, President Barack
Obama will give us Cap & Trade by fiat.

In order to have an impact on U.S. energy consumption, carbon emissions
and climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected
to spearhead policies that would never pass muster with many lawmakers
on Capitol Hill -- at least until after the November election cycle.

In a landmark decision in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
EPA
possessed the legal authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases.

As a result of the court bestowing such power on that agency -- and
the likelihood that Cap & Trade and similar legislation will not
reach President Obama's desk for signing -- EPA officials have declared
carbon dioxide and other gases to be a threat to the environment and
to the health of Americans. They are currently formulating regulations
to restrict emissions from automobiles and trucks, power plants and
other sources.

As with the negative aspects of proposed energy legislation, such regulatory
action will impose additional costs for doing business in America --
even the world -- especially in these uncertain economic times.

While proponents of government-imposed regulations believe the EPA is
justified and welcomed furthering their goal of reducing the production
of the heat-trapping gases that certain scientists claim are changing
the global climate, others are not so sure that what's being touted
as necessary and reasonable are indeed necessary or reasonable.

For example, U.S. Senator
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently took the floor of the Senate and
told her colleagues on both sides of the aisle that she is ready and
willing to fight an EPA she believes is "contemplating regulations
that will destroy jobs while millions of Americans are doing everything
they can just to find one."

“Make
no mistake,” Ms. Murkowski said in her floor statement, “If
Congress allows this to happen there will be severe consequences.”
She said businesses would be forced to close or move overseas, domestic
energy production would be curtailed, housing would become more expensive
and agricultural costs would rise.

"Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our
borders or close their doors for good perhaps. Domestic energy production
will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers
and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable,"
said the angry senator from Alaska.

Advertisement

Murkowski
proposed that the Senate pass a resolution forcing the EPA to back down
and stop it from being used by the Obama White House to force congress
to pass energy and climate-change legislation.

Ms. Murkowski, the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, has nearly unanimous Republican support in addition
to the backing of the three Democrats: Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas,
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is fighting
to regain his popularity after caving-in to voting for the Democrats'
health care bill.

However,
her resolution requires a majority vote in the Senate, something very
unlikely since the opposition of the Democratic leader, Senator Harry
Reid of Nevada, and most of the other Senate Democrats is fierce.

That
resolution faces an even tougher road to passing in the House, and would
most probably be vetoed by Obama, a man who places the environment --
or government power-grabbing -- high on his agenda.

All
the same, Senator Murkowski's resolution and statements received the
applause of industry leaders, and members of agriculture and energy
lobbies, who fear the prospect of what they consider capricious and
heavy-handed regulation by EPA. Perhaps her resolution would see the
light of day in November, when voters will have the opportunity to replace
lawmakers obsessed with a radical environmental agenda with lawmakers
who have Americans’ best interests at heart.

SUSPECTED
CORRUPTION

The
EPA was recently swayed by the industry it regulates to conceal a hazardous
chemical has been duped into labeling bogus products as greenhouse emissions-decreasing
energy savers that qualify for government rebates, according to public-interest
group Judicial
Watch.

This
certainly indicates that Uncle Sam’s highly-touted Energy Star
program, which offers hundreds of millions of dollar in rebates to those
who use “energy efficient” products, is a big joke or at
the very least a waste of public funds.

The
scandal-plagued Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) runs the program
along with the Department of Energy (DOE) and millions of tax dollars
have been spent to encourage Americans to use its approved products.
In fact, Energy Star just got a $300 million infusion from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act so states can offer rebates.

Now
a congressional investigation reveals that products carrying the coveted
Energy Star label may not be efficient after all because the program
is highly vulnerable to fraud. More than a dozen fake items, including
a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” and nonexistent dehumidifiers
and heat pumps, submitted for approval easily secured the Energy Star
label, according to a report issued by the Government
Accountability Office.

It
includes the embarrassing details of a nine-month probe that sheds a
shameful light on the government for wasting tax dollars and essentially
deceiving Americans into believing they’re using quality, energy-saving
products with a reliable stamp of approval. For the most part Energy
Star is a self-certification project susceptible to fraud and abuse,
investigators found.

The
best part is that officials at the federal agencies in charge actually
agree that they take the manufacturers’ word when they issue Energy
Star certifications. Self-policing subsequently ensures the products,
which may not be energy efficient to begin with, maintain adequate standards,
they assert.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

In
February 2010, investigators revealed that the EPA caved into the industry
it regulates by keeping a household chemical (Bisphenol), banned in
several states after hundreds of scientific studies deemed it unsafe,
off its hazard list. The agency had previously earmarked it to be included
on its list of dangerous products that need tougher regulation but reneged
after high-level meetings with industry lobbyists.

In
order to have an impact on U.S. energy consumption, carbon emissions and
climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to spearhead
policies that would never pass muster with many lawmakers on Capitol Hill
-- at least until after the November election cycle.